NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 219 of 2015 - Smt. Sukrita Diwakar W/o Ramkhilawan Diwakar Aged About 25 Years, by caste-Satnami, R/o Kotadabri, Tah. Champa, Distt.

Janjgir Champa, (C.G.)

---- Appellant Complainant Versus

1 - Bhagwat Shrivas S/o Siyaram Shrivas Aged About 35 Years, Occupation Police Constable, R/o Village Aamapali, P.S. Baradwar, At Present residing At Police Colony, Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, Distt.

Janjgir Champa, (C.G.)

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (C.G.)

---- Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate.

For respondent No. 1 : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.

For State/respondent No. 2 : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G. A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board

21.02.2024

1. This acquittal appeal is filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2015 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Janjgir (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 53/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short, “the Act, 1989”) and Section

354 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.01.2014 the complainant went to the Court to collect her maintenance amount from the CCD as she is a deserted woman. While going back to her village the respondent/accused Bhagwat Shrivas who is police constable and working at Champa, came there and forcefully stopped her and tried to outrage her modesty by holding her hands and arms. He also threatened and abused her. The complainant went to the police station but her report was not entertained. On the basis of written report F.I.R (Ex. P-2) offence was registered against the respondent/accused and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the Special Court. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, 1989 and in alternate Section 354 of IPC.

3. The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused/respondent. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC and the respondent also examined himself in his defense.

4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the respondents from all charges. Hence, this appeal filed by the victim/prosecutrix.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred to believe the defense version of the accused and erred to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 complainant and PW-2 her mother. Both the witnesses have categorically stated against the accused and his participation in the crime involved. The learned trial Court has come to an erroneous conclusion that the complainant is in habit of lodging false report against the persons. The learned trial Court has come to an erroneous conclusion regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R as it is very clear that the accused is constable working in the Police Department where the complainant had gone to lodge report but the same could not be registered by the superior officers of the respondent. As such, the impugned judgment is bad-in-law, unjust, improper and liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court appreciated all oral and documentary evidence minutely and passed the impugned order properly. The finding of the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

7. Reliance has been placed on the Hon'ble Apex Court’s judgment dated 26.03.2019 in the matter of Ganga Prasad Mahto versus State of Bihar and another in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. No. 8664 of 2014.

8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. It is clear from F.I.R that the incident took place on 31.01.